Patrick Stewart: Politicians should watch Star Trek

In a recent interview with the Huffington Post to promote his upcoming series “Blunt Talk”, Sir Patrick Stewart was asked to name a part that he’s played that would be a good role model for today’s youth.

While he doesn’t exactly answer the question, he definitely feels that watching a certain sci-fi show he worked on could benefit the leaders of the world:

I wish politicians would spend more time watching Star Trek: The Next Generation, because unlike my predecessor Captain James T. Kirk, Jean-Luc Picard believed first and foremost in negotiation. He was a diplomat before he was a warrior. Talk, talk, talk, and keep on talking. I think that would be a great message for the world to absorb because people don’t have to die to achieve a satisfactory solution to anything…I believe we reach for the weapons far too quickly.

How would talk solve the problems with ISIS? You cannot negotaite with these people because all they want is killing an infidel they can get hold of. It’s too late for talking and that’s exactly what happened in the 24th century as well.

TNG started out as a diplomatic utopia but ended with the greatest war the galaxy has ever seen… Even the NextGen movies ceased all the talking and turned Picard into an action hero… From 1989 to 1992 there was a great era of change and opportunities. But thise window of opportunities has closed a long time ago, around 9/11 I guess.

History will repeat itself and unfortunately, I’m afraid, Star Trek has always predicted the course of events for early/mid-21st century… It’s not a question if that happens but when and how. Be it Russia, ISIS or both…war has already started and diplomts have long been replaced by superheroes and space warriors…

2-There are plenty of episodes where they have to try to negotiate with radicals and terrorists. Sometimes negotiation doesn’t work, and they have to send in security, but not until they have exhausted all diplomatic options.

Yeah, Star Trek the Next Generation. That’s all Patrick is concerned with, people listening to him speak. He’s got a bigger head than Shatner!

Actors.

Who’s idea was it to ‘knight’ him? Who’s idea is it to knight anyone?
Those silly Brits’ and their over pompous behavior. I would think the country should be more concerned of how their leaders have been molesting their young!

But wasn’t there that episode of TNG were Picard Indiana Jonesed the genetic code of the dominant sentients in the Gamma Quadrant to discover that all the warring ones who think themsleves something apart are after all really one with their oponents?

In THE ENTERPRISE INCIDENT, Kirk not only play-acted the part of a Captain willing to take actions that would foment war, he ran head on into a “secret” mission that he knew full well was an act of war no matter how he sliced it to give The Federation plausible deniability.

And I never did understand the resolution of that episode, Spock intimated that the Romulan Commander would be returned to her people in a prisoner exchange. What did he and The Federation expect her to tell her people upon that return? That Kirk was indeed a raving lunatic who acted solely on his own just to keep her and Spock’s true love tryst the real military secret?

I just recalled too that Spock already confessed his guilt to the Romulan recording device before Kirk beamed him and the Romulan Commander over. So the whole thing seems very messy war-wise. Wouldn’t you agree?

I agree with most of your assessment, in TNG all the bad guys (with the exception of the Borg i guess ;) can be reasoned with, they are open to talking and they are susceptible to reason, compromise and logic. Even honor.
But to the real-life ‘bad guys’ today (religious fundamentalists), those things have no meaning whatsoever. There is no negotiating with people like that, it is their way all the way, or nothing.

Having said that I love Patrick Stewart for believing in those values. I grew up watching Star Trek and believing in those values as well.

I don’t think TOS Kirk (while in his right head, which takes a bunch of eps out of the running right away) is ever in a rush to war once you get past ARENA and ERRAND OF MERCY, which are quintessential eps by Coon that really define Kirk for me.

The ‘cowboy diplomacy’ line by Jeri Taylor shows she was buying into a cliche rather than showing something bore out by the series she supposedly watched all episodes of after hiring in for TNG.

While ENTERPRISE INCIDENT (wrongly) does not show any conflict Kirk & Spock have over their mission, that’s not to say it isn’t present. Even when I was 10 years old I was kinda ticked off that ‘we were the bad guys’ in this episode (but I hadn’t started reading LeCarre yet.) I haven’t read them, but apparently there are section31 novels suggesting that Kirk was forced to do this by that secret group, which again does not support the idea that he was some gung-ho war guy throughout Trek.

I for one actually think Kirk should have carried more of a grudge with folks like the Kelvans, who actually killed a crewmember before being ‘enlightened’ by him, but that’s a whole separate issue.

But wasn’t there that episode of TNG were Picard Indiana Jonesed the genetic code of the dominant sentients in the Gamma Quadrant to discover that all the warring ones who think themsleves something apart are after all really one with their oponents?

I don’t remember anything from the Gamma Quadrant ever being in any TNG episode. And your plot description doesn’t sound familiar, either.

Disinvited is talking about the the season 6 episode “The Chase”. In that episode the Romulans, the Klingons, the Cardassians & the Federation find out that most of the humanoids life in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants share the same DNA due to a galaxy wide seeding by a very ancient civilization known as The Preservers.

Okay, as it came up, first, there needs to be a reasonable assessment of what ISIS is, and isn’t. Despite what one hears from a certain political party, ISIS isn’t on the verge of rampaging through American cities, so those individuals really need to shut the hell up. That kind of chatter inflames the masses, it’s not hard to find people thumping their chests about heading off to war when it’s someone else’s kids doing the dying. Diplomacy then kicks in when you go to the nations that have been identified as funding ISIS, and nudge then toward knocking that nonsense off with the leverage of a bit of public shaming of their activities. Then you engage the locals – so far, they don’t really seem to care to much about this insurgency in their own back yard. Once on board, isolate them – no trade, no weapons, strict embargo. As ISIS is largely a creation of a group of locals who have been given the chance to behave badly, like any cancer, if you isolate it and starve it, it dies. Effective, yes, but not nearly as flashy as waves of bombers laying waste to the desert…. And for those who want to argue that ISIS wouldn’t exist had the US not invaded Iraq to begin with – first, that speculation at best, second, assuming that’s true, that where we as a nation negotiate how we, in conjunction with the locals, contain and eliminate the problem. Provide command and… Read more »

Kirk gets a bad rap. In “By Any Other Name,” he and the leader of the Kelvans were engaged in a fistfight, and he was still trying to talk the guy down DURING THE FISTFIGHT. If somebody punches Kirk, he’ll punch back, but he’ll try to negotiate even while punching.

TNG has nothing to compare with Kirk’s diplomacy in A Taste of Armageddon.

All of this Kirk vs Picard stuff is a bit amusing having participated in it since 1988.

Ultimately Picard is at the end of his career during his show and Kirk is at the beginning in his. Further Kirk as depicted is more intellectual/philosophical/diplomatic than Picard was implied to be at a similar age.

Regarding the Enterprise Incident people have brought up. That’s a mission. It is no different than Picard invading a Cardassian military base out of uniform in a secret mission. Well other than Kirk’s mission was a bit more successful.

Good episode. DS9 confused the hell out of me when they introduced The Founders looking exactly like The Preservers from The Chase, even the same actress. Seems like a big wasted opportunity there not to connect them somehow. Like have it that The Preservers, thinking that they were going to become extinct, seeded the Alpha and Beta Quadrants with their DNA, but then later found a cure to their existential threat after exploring the Gamma Quadrant, where they remained living. Having conquered certain death, The Preservers became increasingly hubristic over time, eventually arriving at the worldview and galactic disposition that they have when we join them in DS9.

Perhaps people confuse Kirk’s powerful personality with his wanting to fight. As others have said, he does not – when he is himself. He will defend himself or his crew, however, with no hesitation. Philosophically, he is a man of peace and carries this through in his Star Fleet functioning.

Phil, well said sir, and may we elect people (not corporations) who think more like Picard and Kirk at their best.

If a majority of nations isolates the “Islamic State” the IS will lose its power to attract zealots and will eventually lose its hold in the region. Of course like the Hydra, another horrific face will grow up (too many possibilities alas), possibly in another region. But if the nations stay true to the cause of peace and other benificent goals (such as endi g poverty) I believe we can avoid a nuclear winter.

The problem I see is, many of those who would take the US to war (without their children fighting on behalf of the twerps) benefit from their investments in weapoms platforms &c. And far too many Western nations are involved in the arms trade.

To the person above wondering who would have given him the knighthood well, that would have been his beloved (and these days massively screwed up) Labour party.
A reward for being a loyal little soldier for the party over the years.
Oh they’ll say it was for services to the theatre and British cinema but it will have been because he has been a Labour supporter with a high profile.

35ps,
Have you seen a ton of information conclusively DISPROVING that assertion?

Don’t call something shameful and hateful just because you disagree with the assertion. Instead if you have to hate, hate that a group — domestically based or otherwise — has gone that route to incite world affairs.

Of course, the Conservative would never consider putting forward the name of somebody to be considered for knighthood, who had also been a loyal supporter of that party.

It seems that none of what SIR Patrick Stewart may have done for the Arts over time matters a jot, only what his political persuasions may be.

Am I to assume that neither party could possibly consider any genuine contributions a person may have made to society, in various ways, to be grounds to offer such a person’s name for consideration? It would always, and only be about, how bigger a supporter they have been to the respective party.

I get it now…

Something smells bad and for some reason, I do not think it has to with Sir Patrick or either major British political party…:(

There are no evidences to prove or disprove this particular theory but you have to be naive or not a reader of history to ignore the involvement of various intelligence agencies in the United States & elsewhere with terrorist organizations in the past.